PENNSYLVANIA DEMANDS BIG $$ FROM BOTH NADER AND ROMANELLI FOR REMOVING EACH
FROM THE BALLOT

On January 8, the U.S.
Supreme Court refused to hear Ralph Nader’s appeal in Nader v Seroty, 06-696.
And on January 25, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth ruled against Carl Romanelli,
the Green Party candidate in 2006 for U.S. Senate. This means that Nader owes
various Pennsylvania court officials $81,102.19 (plus interest of $8,719 that
continues to accrue), and that Romanelli owes $80,408, due February 24, 2007.

These fees are not fines,
and no one ever indicted Nader or Romanelli for any wrong-doing. These are
civil fees. They are costs than can be assessed in civil cases against the
losing side.

Until Pennsylvania decided
to interpret its election challenge laws to permit such fees, no state had
ever charged a candidate (whose petitions to get on a ballot were insufficient)
for the court costs associated with the challenge process. Most states don’t
use the challenge process; instead elections officials check signature validity.
Even in the few states that do use a challenge process, adjudication is by
elections officials, not by judges.

Until 2004, no petition
challenge had been made in Pennsylvania to a statewide minor party or independent
petition since 1938. And even in 1938, when the Socialist Party successfully
challenged the petition of the Socialist Labor Party, no one thought to impose
fees. The fiscal threat to Pennsylvania minor party and independent candidates
that surfaced in 2004 is entirely new in Pennsylvania.

The
Pennsylvania Challenge-Fee System is Unconstitutional

In 1966, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that Virginia’s $1.50 poll tax was unconstitutional. Harper
v Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663.

The Court said, "It
is argued that a State may extract fees from citizens for many kinds of licenses;
that if it can demand from all an equal fee for a driver’s license, it can
demand from all an equal poll tax for voting. But we must remember that the
interest of the State, when it comes to voting, is limited to the power to
fix qualifications. Wealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to
one’s ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process…Wealth
or fee paying has no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote
is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned."

In 1972 and again in
1974, the Supreme Court applied that principle to mandatory candidate fees,
and unanimously rejected them, at least for candidates who cannot afford them.
Bullock v Carter, 405 U.S. 134, struck down Texas filing fees that
ranged from $1,424 to $6,300. Lubin v Panish, 415 US 709, struck down
a California fee of $702. In 2003, the 3rd circuit struck down
Pennsylvania’s mandatory filing fee of $200, in Belitskus v Pizzingrilli,
343 F 3d 632.

One may object that poll
taxes and filing fees are not directly analogous, because Pennsylvania candidates
whose petitions are sufficient need not pay court costs. However, when Pennsylvania
requires as many signatures as it does (67,070 in 2006), it is impossible
for a candidate to know in advance if his or her petition will pass muster.
To make a better analogy, imagine that Virginia had imposed a poll tax only
on voters who vote for a losing candidate instead of a winning candidate,
and that the tax was to be collected after the election was over. A voter
would be told, "Don’t worry; you may vote without paying the poll tax,
IF your candidate is a winner."

Such a hypothetical poll
tax would obviously deter potential voters. Similarly, the challenge-fee system
will deter potential candidates. If deterrence is the real-world consequence
of the threatened fee, then the fee might as well have been mandatory from
at the beginning of the process. The effect is the same; candidates will be
afraid to file.

When candidates are deterred
from getting on the ballot, then voters who want to vote for them lose their
freedom to vote for the candidate of their choice. This is especially true
in Pennsylvania, where the state Elections Director admitted on the stand
in the Romanelli hearing (held on January 9) that certain counties, including
Philadelphia, did not count write-in votes in November 2006.

Pennsylvania
Press Has Been Silent

When state government
tramples on fundamental rights, one can often count on major newspapers to
publicize the injustice. In 1997, when the Pennsylvania legislature passed
a bill quadrupling the number of signatures required for minor party and independent
candidates, the big newspapers in Pennsylvania, as well as the New York
Times, denounced the bill. Governor Tom Ridge then vetoed it.

But the Pennsylvania
newspapers have been almost completely silent about the challenge-fee problem,
even though it is new to the state. One sorry exception was the Pittsburgh
Tribune-Review of January 13, 2007. An editorial titled "The Nader
Case: Pay up, Ralph," said "Of the 51,000 signatures collected by
the Nader campaign, two-thirds were rejected. Commonwealth Court observed
sharply that the petition, signed by such luminaries as Fred Flintstone and
Mickey Mouse, ‘was the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetuated’
on it.

The quote above was from
Judge James Gardner Colins, one of the eleven judges who reviewed Nader’s
2004 petitions. Statewide, only 687 signatures out of 51,273 were found to
be forgeries. Among the eleven judges, Colins found 588 of the forgeries (from
among the 10,794 signatures he reviewed), whereas all the other ten judges
put together only found 99 forgeries (out of the 40,479 signatures they reviewed).
Handwriting experts were on hand in all the courtrooms (which is why the court
costs were so high), and signatures on petitions were compared with signatures
on voter registration records. It is peculiar that the other ten judges only
found a forgery rate of two-tenths of 1%, whereas Judge Colins found a forgery
rate of 5.4%.

Concerning Colins’ hyperbole
about ‘the most deceitful’ petition ever reviewed, Nader’s petition was the
first time any statewide minor party or independent petition had been challenged
in Judge Colins’ lifetime. His comparison is meaningless.

Romanelli will appeal
his loss in the Commonwealth Court to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but
Nader has no further legal options.

One is reminded of the
book Brave New World. In the future, society was structured so that
all babies were grouped into five social classes. Babies in the lower two
classes were conditioned (by electric shock) to hate and fear books. They
were the classes intended to be docile workers. Pennsylvania judges seem to
be conditioning Pennsylvanians to hate and fear running for office outside
the two major parties.

US
SUPREME COURT

The U.S. Supreme Court
conference of February 16 will decide whether to hear these cases: (1) N.Y.
Bd. of Elections v Lopez Torres; (2) Protect Marriage Illinois v Orr;
(3) Romanelli v Election Board. The first case concerns the number
of signatures needed to get on a primary ballot; the other two concern procedures
for checking signatures on petitions.

NEW
HAMPSHIRE LEGIS. HEARING GOES WELL

On January 24, the New
Hampshire House Election Law Committee heard HB 48, to change "party"
from a group that polled 4% for either Governor or Senator, to 2%. Twelve
people testified for the bill, and no one testified against it. The Secretary
of State’s representative had a few concerns about space on general election
ballots. However, it was brought out that if SB 36 passes, these concerns
would be laid to rest. SB 36 would eliminate party columns (that bill has
a legislative hearing January 31). Activists are optimistic that the committee
will pass HB 48 in February.

GOOD
BILLS

Colorado: SB 7
and HB 7 would let a state resident over the age of 18 circulate any type
of petition. Current law won’t let anyone circulate a candidate petition for
district or county office if he or she doesn’t live in that district or county.

Illinois: HB 158,
by Rep. William Black, would lower minor party candidate petitions so that
they equal the number of signatures needed by major party members seeking
a place on the primary ballot. That would cut the statewide petitions from
25,000 to 5,000; and lower the district petitions from 5% of the last vote
cast, to approximately one-fourth of 1% of the last vote cast. Also, Senator
Mike Boland will introduce a bill to move the independent petition deadline
from December of the year before the election, to June of the election year.

Nebraska: LD 539,
by Senator Kent Rogert, would end the primary screen-out for independent presidential
petitions. Currently, a primary voter may sign for a new party, and for an
independent candidate for any office except president. It is silly that presidential
independents can’t get signatures from primary voters.

New Mexico: HB
331, by Rep. Brian Moore, would eliminate the need for nominees of qualified
convention parties to submit petitions.

Oklahoma: SB 28
and HB 1539, by Senator Randy Brogdon and Rep. Marian Cooksey, would lower
the new party petition from 5% of the last vote cast, to 5,000 signatures.
It would also lower the vote test for a party to remain on from 10% to 1%.

Oregon: Senator
Ben Westlund has introduced a bill to eliminate the primary screen-out for
independent candidates. The bill doesn’t have a number yet.

South Dakota:
Senator Frank Kloucek is about to introduce a bill to make it easier for an
already-qualified party to remain on the ballot.

Texas: Rep. Mark
Strama (D-Pflugerville) will introduce a bill to eliminate the primary screen-out
as soon as he can find a Republican co-sponsor.

West Virginia:
Delegate Barbara Fleischauer has introduced a bill to move the petition deadline
for minor party and independent candidates (for office other than president)
from May to August. The presidential deadline is already in August.

BAD
ACCESS BILLS

Connecticut: Susan
Bysiewicz, the Secretary of State, says she will have a bill introduced to
move the independent and minor party candidate petition deadline from August
to July. She says this will discourage, but not outlaw, "sore losers".

Also in Connecticut,
Senator Mary Ann Handley has introduced SB 556, to outlaw fusion. This is
odd, since she herself was helped by fusion last year. She received 20,969
votes on the Democratic line and 1,118 on the Working Families line.

Virginia: HB 3157
would impose filing fees on minor party and independent candidates (for all
office except president). The fees would be 2% of the annual salary of the
office, so congressional candidates would need $3,300. The sponsor, Delegate
Leo Wardrup, says because cities are now allowed to hold city elections in
November, he is afraid the November ballots will be too crowded.

PECULIAR
WASHINGTON STATE BILL

Washington Secretary
of State Sam Reed has asked the legislature to pass SB 5604 or HB 1534, identical
bills that revise minor party and independent candidate procedures.

Current law requires
1,000 signatures for statewide and U.S. House candidates (who are not members
of qualified parties), and 100 signatures for lesser office. The new bills
retain these figures, except they lower U.S. House to 500 signatures. Current
law requires the signatures to be gathered at so-called "conventions",
but in practice, these petitions are really one-location petition drives,
since anyone walking past the so-called "convention" is deemed to
be an attendee. The new bills drop this sham, and simply provide for ordinary
petitions, which could be circulated as early as the group wishes.

These are all beneficial
changes. Unfortunately the bill requires the nominees of unqualified parties,
and independent candidates (unless they are running for president), to appear
on some sort of unspecified primary ballot, where they each would need to
poll the same number of votes that they also needed for their petitions. This
provision is a setback, compared to existing law. Activists will try to delete
this part of the bills.

PRESIDENTIAL
PRIMARY DATE BILLS

California: SB
113 and AB 157 would create a February presidential primary. The primary for
other office would continue to be in June.

Florida: HB 537
would move the presidential primary from March to February.

Illinois: a bill
will soon be introduced to move the primary from March to February.

New Jersey: A
3832 and S2193 would move the presidential primary from late February to early
February. S 2345 would make the same change, but would move the primary for
other office to February as well.

NATIONAL
POPULAR VOTE BILLS

The movement to persuade
states to pass bills for the "National Popular Vote Plan" for presidential
elections is very energetic. Already, bills to implement the plan have been
introduced in 16 states. The Colorado bill, SB 46, has already passed the
Senate. To keep up with these bills, see www.nationalpopularvote.com.

IRV
BILLS

Arizona: HB 2287
would ban vote-counting equipment that is not able to cope with Instant-Runoff
voting.

Hawaii: SB 630
would require the state to study how to implement Instant-Runoff voting.

Minnesota: SF
39 would implement IRV in all elections in the state.

Vermont: a bill
will be introduced any day to provide that one or two particular statewide
offices should use IRV. The Secretary of State supports the bill, and it is
expected to have as many as 50 co-sponsors.

The voters of Springfield,
Ill., and Sarasota, Fla., will soon vote on whether to use IRV in city elections.

MISSOURI
RULING

The Missouri Secretary
of State has ruled that new party petitions need not show a list of candidates
for presidential elector. Before 1993, Missouri required petitions for a new
party to list all of the new party’s nominees for all office (which forced
new parties to choose candidates before the petition could circulate). That
system was improved in 1993. But due to a typographical error in the 1993
bill, the new law continued to say that such petitions must list the new party’s
candidates for presidential elector. The Secretary of State ruling implicitly
acknowledges that intent of the law.

ILL.
VICTORY SAFE

On January 3, the 7th
circuit denied Illinois’ request for a rehearing in Lee v Keith, the
independent candidate petition deadline victory.

UNITY.08
SUES FEC

On January 10, Unity.08
filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission, to overturn an FEC
ruling that makes it illegal for anyone to give more than $5,000 to Unity.08.
Unity08 v FEC, 1:07-cv-53, U.S. Dist. Ct., Washington, D.C.

Campaign contribution
limits exist because of the fear that, otherwise, powerful politicians would
be bribed by receiving large campaign contributions. Campaign contribution
limits infringe liberty, and cannot be justified apart from the bribery problem.
Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down limits on how much an individual
may contribute to an initiative campaign. Similarly, there is no logic to
justify a limit on how much money an individual may contribute to a group
like Unity.08, which has no candidate for federal office and no particular
ties to any federal office-holders. It is merely trying to create a new party
for the limited purpose of placing an independent (or independent-minded)
slate on the ballot in 2008 for president and vice-president.

Unity.08’s lawsuit will
be helped by a recent 9th circuit campaign finance opinion, Citizens
for Clean Government v City of San Diego, 04-56964, issued January 19.
The decision was skeptical that San Diego may limit contributions to a committee
that was trying to pay circulators to recall a city councilmember. The 9th
circuit sent the case back to the U.S. District Court to give the city a chance
to present evidence that the restriction is really needed.

COFOE
EXPENDITURES

(1) COFOE filed an amicus
in the federal lawsuit in Oregon, attacking the law that makes it illegal
for primary voters to sign an independent petition: (2) COFOE contributed
toward the appeal of a federal lawsuit that attacks Maryland’s alphabetical
order listing of candidates on primary ballots; (3) COFOE helped pay for one
of the U.S. Supreme Court response briefs in Washington, bringing out the
ballot access implications of the "top-two" system.

"Indpc" = Independence.
"Wk Fam" = Working Families. States not named had no partisan state
house elections this year.

INDEPENDENT
LEGISLATORS

The December 1, 2006
B.A.N. noted that seven minor party nominees (who were not also major
party nominees) had been elected to state legislatures on November 7, 2006.
In addition, five independent candidates were elected to state legislatures:
Bob Leeper was elected to the Kentucky Senate; Thomas Saviello and Richard
Woodbury to the Maine House; and Daryl Pillsbury and Will Stevens to the Vermont
House. A write-in candidate, Pam Richardson, was elected to the Massachusetts
House.

2008
PETITIONING

This year, several petition
drives to place parties on the 2008 ballot have been completed. Parties that
have recently been put on the ballot are: Libertarian in Maryland and North
Dakota; Green in Maryland; Constitution in North Dakota; and the Independent
Party in Oregon.

These petitions are underway:
the Green Party has 1,000 signatures in Az.; the Constitution Party has 250
signatures in Mo. and 200 in W.V.; the Libertarian Party has 6,500 signatures
in Neb., 29,000 in N.C., and 300 in Utah.

The Green Party says
it will try to qualify as a statewide party in Georgia for 2008. They need
44,089 signatures, to be gathered between April 2007 and July 2008. The Green
Party has never met a signature requirement this high in any state in its
history, except for its registration drive in California in 1991, when it
needed 79,188 registrants.

Unity.08 says it will
soon start petition drives in several states. Atlantic Monthly Magazine
for Jan-Feb. 2007 has a feature story about Unity.08.

PROHIBITION
INTERNAL DISPUTE

On January 16, a hearing
was held in the lawsuit seeking to settle who the true Prohibition Party officers
are. After hearing evidence, the judge ruled the case had been filed in the
wrong court, so the case now starts over again.

RON
PAUL SEEKS REPUBLICAN NOD

On January 11, Congressman
Ron Paul filed papers to create a presidential exploratory committee. Many
other Democratic and Republican politicians are announcing for their party’s
presidential nomination. But because Ron Paul was the Libertarian Party presidential
candidate in 1988, the announcement particularly resonated with Libertarians.
Paul says he won’t run for president in November under any other banner. But,
were he to lose his fight for the Republican nomination, he is free to change
his mind. Precedents set by John Anderson, David Duke and Lyndon LaRouche
in almost all states establish that "sore loser" laws don’t apply
to presidential primaries. Exceptions are Mississippi, Ohio, South Dakota
and Texas.

REFORM
PARTY REPAYMENT FIGHT

Three years ago, the
Federal Election Commission determined that the Reform Party owes the FEC
$333,358. The FEC says the party did not properly spend some of the money
it was given for its 2000 presidential convention. The party is fighting that
determination. On January 12, the lawsuit was heard in the 11th
circuit. FEC v Reform Party of USA, 05-17083. By their comments and
questions, the three judges did seem to feel that the FEC is unjustified in
forbidding the national party from spending any money to raise money to pay
off the debt.

CANADIAN
"PRESIDENTIAL" DEBATES

Canada uses the Parliamentary
system. Voters vote for Parliament, and then Parliament chooses the nation’s
chief executive. Prior to any national election, the heads of each party that
has members in Parliament debate each other. This is Canada’s closest equivalent
to a "presidential" debate. Four parties have members in Parliament,
so they are included in these debates. The nation’s political leaders are
now thinking about including the Green Party in the next debate, even though
the Green Party has no members in Parliament. The basis for including the
Greens is that they ran a candidate in each district in the last election.

SUBSCRIBING
TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

If you use Paypal, you
can subscribe to B.A.N., or renew, with Paypal. If you use a credit
card in connection with Paypal, use richardwinger@yahoo.com.
If you don’t use a credit card in conjunction with Paypal, use sub@richardwinger.com.